Despite the fact that we are again in the midst of an Undergraduate Council popular presidential election, readers have raised nary a whisper about The Crimson's campaign coverage this time around. Perhaps the second time's a charm for Crimson reporters. On the other hand, maybe this year's less vigorous campaign is simply producing less controversy.

Last year, although there were fewer candidates in the race, Crimson coverage managed to Readers questioned The Crimson's credibility, since many of those young on staff editorials had connections to the Undergraduate Council and several of the candidates were Crimson editors. Candidates angry about receiving down arrows and being called WASPs, ugly or spoiled objected to "Crimson Wisdom" by Daniel C. Allen '97 and Andrew A. Green '98, a take-off of Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom." But this year, as we experience a popular election for the second time, "Crimson Wisdom" came and went without reader comment, and only one candidate, Justin E. Porter '99, stopped me to say he felt shafted by Crimson (non) coverage of his campaign.

Undoubtedly, there are few things more difficult for a newspaper than trying to cover an election fairly. Having 13 presidential and five vice-presidential candidates does not make this process any easier.

Crimson editors and reporters undoubtedly, are aware of the dilemmas involved. As a result, coverage of the elections this year has been almost self-consciously balanced. It is true that the vast majority of the press has gone to four candidates: Elizabeth A. Haynes '98, Benjamin R. Kaplan '99-'98, Eric M. Nelson '99 and Lamelle D. Rawlins '99. Still, these are the only candidates who have political pasts and widespread name-recognition on campus. As a result, these are the only candidates who now appear to have a legitimate chance of victory. Inevitably, judgment calls were made, but this is not unusual. Bob Dole got a lot more campaign coverage than Alan Keyes.

Admittedly, last year, The Crimson printed the position papers of every candidate. This year, because the staff thought the position papers were boring for readers, they were not printed. In my opinion, this was not the best decision. Although readers can view the position papers on the Internet, publishing the papers would give candidates without initial name recognition an additional opportunity to express their views. Still, The Crimson did do a better job this year with its candidate profiles. The two page spread in yesterday's paper covered candidate views and attracted the eye with a nicely designed layout.

For the most part, Crimson coverage has been fair if sometimes bland, perhaps reflecting the blander nature of the campaign this year. The work of Peggy S. Chen '99 has been good, especially her well-balanced December 5 piece on Rawlins's candidacy and her equally fair November 27 article on the controversial movement for council finance reform. In addition, coverage of the election has been spread among 10 different reporters and editorialists, thus avoiding any individual's views dominating the coverage.

On the opinion page, we have seen views on both sides of the issues, and Editorial Chair Sarah J. Schaffer '97 has continued her policy of printing all letters to the editor, space permitting. Most important, Crimson staff editorials permit dissenters to separate their views from the majority opinion, thus allowing readers to know which editorials had overwhelming support and which did not. You won't see this policy at many daily newspapers, yet it is one of the best aspects of The Crimson's opinion page. Especially with regard to endorsements, the prominence of dissenting views has helped to focus the campaign on the issues. This year the staff endorsed Elizabeth A. Haynes '98, but dissenters, including some of the top Crimson brass, presented views in support of two other candidates. Last year, various members of the staff wrote in favor of four different presidential candidates.

Even "Crimson Wisdom," the spoof that I took issue with last year for its placement in the staff editorial column and for its sometimes malicious personal attacks on various candidates, was better placed this year and stuck to the issues. Thankfully, the writers this year--Allen, Green and Amy M. Rabinowitz '98--stayed away from people's personal appearances and ethnic heritages. As a result, "Crimson Wisdom" was actually pretty funny. Still, next time the editorial page editor should double-check those arrows to make sure a correction box isn't needed the next day. An apology should have gone and did go to Mark A. Price '98, who was supposed to have had the thumbs up.

Shawn G. Zeller '97 is The Crimson's ombudsperson, or reader representative. He may be reached on e-mail at szeller@fas.harvard.edu or at home at 493-2490. He is not a Crimson editor or executive, and his opinions are his alone.